Plaintiff, James Ziegel, Jr., sustained injuries when he cut
his great toe on a telephone pedestal box located in the
corner of his back yard. Made defendant was South Central
Bell, owner of the box.

The case proceeded to a bench trial on January 21, 1993. The trial
Judge took the case under advisement, and rendered judgment on
March 2, 1993. This judgment found South Central Bell liable
for the broken condition of its box, and awarded the plaintiff
$2,690.00 in special damages (the medical expenses) and $2,510.00
in general damages, for a total award of $5,200.00. Plaintiff
devolutively appeals the amount of the award, urging it to be
inadequate and an abuse of the trial court's discretion. South
Central Bell answered the appeal, arguing the trial court erred
in finding South Central Bell liable and, alternatively, argues
that the trial court should have applied the principles of
contributory negligence to reduce the plaintiff's recovery. For
the reasons which follow, we affirm the trial court's judgment
as amended.

During the evening of July 24, 1990, James Ziegel, Jr. was playing
chase in his back yard with his older brother, Robert, when he
ran into a telephone pedestal box located on the ground in the
corner of the yard. He suffered a laceration across the top of
the toe. James' mother took him to West Jefferson Hospital emergency
room where the toe was stitched up. About two months after his
incident with the telephone box, on September 14, 1990, James
Jr. hurt his other foot. The doctor who treated him this second
time advised plaintiff's mother that he should see a specialist
for the toe, as it looked somewhat misshapen. There was also
testimony that plaintiff's toe rubbed on his shoe and was constantly
irritated. Thereafter, about ten months later, (July 19, 1991)
the plaintiff saw Dr. Chris Digrado, who diagnosed "mallet deformity."
He operated on James' toe, shortening the tendon and placing
a pin in the toe to stabilize the tendon. James wore two casts
and was on crutches for a few weeks. Dr. Digrado testified in
his deposition that the patient's progress post-operatively was
good, and the doctor believed he would have no future problems
with the toe. At the time of trial, plaintiff's toe function
appeared to be normal.

For ease in Discussion, we will consider South Central Bell's
arguments first. The defendant argues that the trial court erred
in finding them liable for the plaintiff's injuries. Alternatively,
they argue the trial court erred in not applying the principles
of comparative fault to reduce plaintiff's recovery.

On appeal, South Central Bell also asks that plaintiff's reply
brief be stricken in whole or in part because plaintiff discusses
the legal principles of strict liability therein. South Central
Bell argues that since plaintiff's petition for damages is based
on the theory of negligence, the Discussion of strict liability
is improper.

Initially, we note that the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure
establishes a system of fact pleading. As long as facts constituting
a claim are alleged, the party may be granted any relief to which
he is entitled under the pleadings and the evidence; the "theory
of the case" doctrine, under which a party must select the theory
of his case and adhere to it throughout the litigation, has been
abolished.
First South Production Credit Assoc. v. Georgia-Pacific,
585 So.2d 545 (La. 1991).

Also, a judgment and reasons for judgment are two separate and
distinct legal documents and appeals are taken from the judgment,
not the written reasons for judgment. LSA-C.C.P. art. 1918.
Succession of Velasquez-Bain,
471 So.2d 731 (4th Cir. 1985), writ denied, 476 So.2d 354 (La. 1985).
On appeal, the court of appeal reviews judgments and,
where the court of appeal believes that the trial
court reached the proper result, the judgment will be affirmed.
Id., at 751.

Therefore, we would deny South Central Bell's motion regarding
plaintiff's reply brief and consider the judgment itself, which
finds South Central Bell liable for the plaintiff's injuries,
and awards plaintiff damages of $5,200.00.

An action for negligence sounds under LSA-C.C. art. 2315 and 2316.
In a typical negligence action against the owner of a thing which
is actively involved in the causation of injury, the claimant
must prove that something about the thing created an unreasonable
risk of injury that resulted in damage; that the owner knew or
should have known of the risk, and that the owner nevertheless failed
to render the thing safe or to take adequate steps to prevent the damage
caused by the thing. In a strict liability action against the
same owner, the claimant is relieved only of proving that the
owner knew or should have known of the risk involved. The other
elements must be proven as in a negligence action.
Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co.,
418 So.2d 493 (La. 1982).

It was undisputed that South Central Bell owned the telephone
pedestal box, and that plaintiff cut his toe on its exposed edge
while he was playing in his back yard.

However, defendant disputes that they ever received notice about
the box's condition, so as to support a finding that they were
negligent. They also dispute the box's condition at the time
of the accident.

Tamie Ziegel, James Jr.'s mother, testified that five to six months
before the accident, she called South Central Bell to report
that the box was open and leaning to one side. She used the telephone
number printed on her phone bill. South Central Bell counters
that they have no record of any service call regarding this box.
South Central Bell admitted that they have no routine inspection
and maintenance schedule regarding these boxes. South Central
Bell also admitted that they first saw the terminal box eight
or nine months after the accident, when this litigation was imminent.
Finally, South Central Bell said that if the box had been open
all the time as plaintiff's witnesses allege, its phone lines
would have had service problems, because of moisture in the lines.
South Central Bell's records indicate that they received no calls
regarding trouble with these lines.

To be found negligent, South Central Bell must have known or should
have known about the condition of this terminal box. Evidently,
the trial Judge believed Mrs. Ziegel's claim that she notified
South Central Bell. A trial Judge's determinations of credibility
are to be given great weight.
Rosell v. Esco,
549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989).
However, we note that under strict liability, plaintiff
does not have to prove that the defendant had knowledge of the
box's condition.
Kent v. Gulf States Utilities Co.,
supra.

Regarding the physical condition of the box at the time of the
accident, both plaintiff witnesses, Robert and Tamie (the plaintiff's
brother and mother), were shown a photograph of the box. Robert
said that the picture did not exactly represent the box when
James cut his toe on it. He said that the box was leaning halfway
to the ground, but was not all the way on the ground as in the
photograph. Robert stated that the box was opened, and that the
bottom piece, which James ran into, was rusted as in the picture.

Tamie Ziegel testified that the picture fairly represented the
box at the time of the accident. She agreed that the box was
rusted when the accident occurred, and that it was opened up,
exposing wires running into the ground.

The only discrepancies in the testimony regarding the box are
relative to the position of the box, whether it leaned or was
completely flat on the ground. (Normally, the box's position
is straight up, or perpendicular to the ground). Both plaintiff's
witnesses agreed that it was in a state of disrepair, was rusted,
and had exposed wires. Therefore, the differences in their testimony
do not counter the main issue, that the box was in a state of
disrepair and delapidation at the time of James' accident.

The record is clear that South Central Bell did not inspect the
box, nor attempt to do so, until around eight to nine months
after the accident, when litigation was imminent. Therefore,
the trier of fact could have reasonably found that South Central
Bell did not take reasonable steps to fix the telephone terminal box.

Next, South Central Bell argues that the condition of the box
did not create an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff. They
argue that there is no utility in a child running barefoot
in the dark, and that South Central Bell should not be held to
have a duty to prevent such accidents. Furthermore, they argue
that the sole proximate cause of the accident was plaintiff's
actions in carelessly running barefoot in the dark.

First, we note that South Central Bell owned this equipment, and
that plaintiff's family had absolutely no authority to repair
the box themselves. Second, South Central Bell construes the
issue too narrowly, and we believe that there is great utility
in a child's being able to play safely in his own back yard,
at any time, without fear that he will be injured on a piece
of equipment over which whose condition he has no control.
Last, we believe that the trial court correctly found
that James Jr.'s conduct was not the sole nor a contributing
factor in the accident. While a child may be capable of comparative
fault, he is not held to the adult standards of the comprehension
of danger and the duty of self care.
Crowe v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.,
416 So.2d 1376 (3rd Cir. 1982);
Jolivette v. Iberia Parish School Board,
601 So.2d 812 (3rd Cir. 1992).
There is nothing in the record to indicate such reckless or
unreasonable behavior on the part of the plaintiff to hold
him at fault, in any way, for the injuries he suffered. Plaintiff
was behaving as a normal seven year old, and the trial court
could have reasonably concluded that, but for the condition
and position of the telephone box, plaintiff's injuries
would not have occurred.

QUANTUM

Plaintiff argues that the amount awarded for pain and suffering
is too low and should be raised to $20,000.00. The record shows
that the plaintiff was awarded $2,510.00 for pain and suffering.
Plaintiff sustained a laceration of the great toe, which was
stitched up. His mother testified that plaintiff had a recurring
sore where the toe rubbed his shoe, and that she noticed that
he walked differently. When advised by another physician, two
months after these stitches, that plaintiff should have his foot
looked at by a specialist, plaintiff's mother testified that
she put it out of her mind until ten months later, when she brought
James Jr. to Dr. Digrado. Dr. Digrado performed the corrective
surgery and opined that James would have no future problems with
the toe. Other than the above testimony of plaintiff's mother,
the record contains no evidence regarding the degree of plaintiff's
pain or discomfort. All indications were that plaintiff healed
fast with no complications.

Before a trial court award may be questioned as inadequate or
excessive, the reviewing court must look first, not to prior
awards, but to the individual circumstances of the case before
it; only after an analysis of the facts and circumstances peculiar
to the case before it and the individual involved therein may
the review court determine the appropriateness of the award.
Reck v. Stevens,
373 So.2d 498 (La. 1979).
Having reviewed the trial court's award under the above
guidelines, we find that the trial court's award is inadequate.
The lowest reasonable amount the trial court could have awarded
for the plaintiff's pain and suffering is $5,000.00.
Brown v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,
503 So.2d 1122 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1987),
affirmed, 514 So.2d 439 (La. 1987)
rehearing denied, 516 So.2d 1154 (La. 1988),
and
Hicks v. Barney,
526 So.2d 391 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, we amend the trial court's judgment and, as amended,
affirm. All costs of this appeal are to be paid by South Central Bell.